Toggle sidebar

OT - Political/Judicial Question - Trump Trail

greenbean.sixpack

greenbean.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2012
6,920
5,553
113
No need to turn this into an argument over which party is right or wrong. My question - in the movies lawyers can't testify against their clients, but according to the headlines, Cohen (Michael, not John) testified against his former client (Trump). I have no interest in the legitimacy of these proceedings and have not followed it closely, but what gives? Please explain it to me in as few, easy to understand words as possible.
 
Lucifer Morningstar

Lucifer Morningstar

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2022
1,434
2,234
113
If the lawyer was committing a criminal act for his client that takes away the privilege, is my understanding. Not saying a criminal act was being committed before any of yall jump down my throat. Also I got in trouble for this in one of recent posts, but in b 4 the lock because this will not end well. Or at least I do not think so, hopefully I am wrong.
 
greenbean.sixpack

greenbean.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2012
6,920
5,553
113
Lucifer Morningstar said:
If the lawyer was committing a criminal act for his client that takes away the privilege, is my understanding. Not saying a criminal act was being committed before any of yall jump down my throat. Also I got in trouble for this in one of recent posts, but in b 4 the lock because this will not end well. Or at least I do not think so, hopefully I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Good, to the point explanation, no wonder you're winning. The damn Sopranos have let me astray again.
 
theoriginalSALTYdog

theoriginalSALTYdog

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2021
966
1,191
93
Michael Cohen testified against Donald Trump without breaking attorney-client privilege because the privilege does not apply in certain situations.

  1. Waiver of Privilege: When a client voluntarily discloses information to a third party (such as in court or during a public hearing), the attorney-client privilege is waived. In Cohen's case, he chose to testify publicly, which meant that privilege no longer protected the communications between he and Trump.
  2. Crime-Fraud Exception: The attorney-client privilege does not cover communications related to illegal activities or fraud. If an attorney assists a client in committing a crime or fraud, the privilege does not apply.
  3. Joint Representation: When an attorney represents multiple clients with conflicting interests, the privilege may not apply. In Cohen’s case, he represented both Trump and the Trump Organization.
  4. Work Product Doctrine: The privilege generally covers communications between an attorney and their client for the purpose of legal advice. However, it does not extend to work product (such as documents prepared in anticipation of litigation).
In summary, Cohen’s testimony was legally permissible because the attorney-client privilege had exceptions that applied to his situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogStuckAtUM, dorndawg and mstateglfr
GloryDawg

GloryDawg

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2005
15,410
6,759
113
No matter what Cohen say even if it is a proven to be a lie he will not be prosecuted by Alvin Bragg. In fact Bragg was probably hoping he would lie to help his case. Cohen know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeshouldveflanked and tbaydog
You must log in or register to reply here.
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login
Top Bottom